Personality Paper: The Dasein

“Still waters run deep” (Jung)

  
   The dasein that I’ve chosen is my uncle. Michael has a degree in English and currently works as a computer programmer. He lives on the west coast with his family. (This section has been redacted for confidentiality.)

   “A man of few words”(Bible Ecclesiates 5:2). Michael’s orientation of energy is inwardly directed. He focus’ on thoughts and concepts, has a depth of interest, and is very introspective. He tends to need time and space for reflection. I say “need” because for introverts like Michael (and myself) this solitary time is crucial for our “cause” (understanding life). Michael takes a long time to “warm up” to people and can be seen as very quiet or shy. He has a small group of close friends and family that he knows extremely well and to which he is very loyal. Michael has a great sense of humor and presents himself in a very caring manner once he feels comfortable with someone.

   Nemo sine vitio est. Similar to Eros, Michael reveals himself as restless, dearth in constant search for completeness. He goes through times when he feels like he doesn’t fit in (this could, perhaps, originate from the thought that he’s lacking something other people have or, that he occasionally flat out seems to be from another planet). He feels hurt or attacked when someone misunderstands him and he can become antiauthoritarian (rebellious) when criticized. Expecting too much from himself and life, Michael has a tendency to accept blame for problems and hold everything on his own shoulders. He’s hard on himself and this periodically causes feelings of self-hatred, shame and an unfortunate belief that he doesn’t deserve to be loved. It is lucky for Michael (and me) that, as Victor Hugo once said: “The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved-- loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves.” when all is said and done, I believe that our little insecurities are an important part of what makes us fascinating people.

   Continuing with the neuroticism dimension of personality, I would like to mention that Michael has a fear of being abandoned. He also experiences dark moods of emptiness and despair. His wide variety of emotion, his “punishment”, which forces him to suffer a perpetual cycle of ups and downs (much like rolling a boulder up a hill only to see it come crashing back down) may actually play a positive role in his life. “Among the functions of the soul are lowly areas, he who does not see that side of her, does not fully know her.”(Michael Montaigne)

   In a cabin tucked away in the forest of his mind, a silence so deafening and disturbing reminds Michael of nostalgia’s existence. As darkness approaches his shelter wearing a familiar shroud, Michael finds himself praying to his silent vigil just to find the strength to live. Eye to eye with utter despair, Michael cries, for there is nothing so frightening as facing this unknown darkness. Although afraid, Michael is reminded of the fact that there is no change, which does not begin within this dismal place. With courage and patience Michael finds that the vast dark inner space gives birth to light. Trudging upward out of hell’s black depths and at last emerging to see the shining world, Michael’s definitive awakening (new sight/ insight) perhaps may be indemnity enough for having endured his depression(s). out of sheer strength, Michael survives the inexplicable agony of his metamorphosis (unlike Gregor Samsa).

   Hopefully, in the near future, Michael will learn to accept his moods as a part of him… for it seems an essential fluctuation that he endures. I call depression essential here, because I view it in the same manner Jung did… “An empty stillness which precedes creative work”. The latter transition of thought is important because it is a means of transforming a seemingly negative trait into a more positive one. If the thinking change occurs, this in turn will help Michael to become calmer, more secure and more self-satisfied than he currently is. My ultimate point is, in other words, that Michael needs to accept himself in order to adopt a healthier, less neurotic, way of Being.


   The juxtaposition of spontaneity and form are, of course, present throughout all of human history. When speaking of Michael, I must address that he has chosen to engage in one of the most solitary and conjunctive human endeavors: the struggle to live a creative life. Michael is constantly seeking out new possibilities and never seems to lose his sense of wonder. He has many interests and talents. Michael can be extremely patient with complicated issues, but he may also become impatient with routine details. Work has to be fun, or he tends to lose interest.

   Aut viam inveniam. At times, Michael can be awkward and uncomfortable at expressing himself verbally, however, he does have a wonderful ability to define and express what he’s feeling on paper. Michael is a master of metaphors and similes, puns and word games; he likes abstract ideas. His thinking pattern (which at times seems to be much like poetry of thought) leads Michael to consider shades of meaning and contrary assertions as worthy challenges. He values the open ended and enjoys exploring the “reality of the unseen”(William James). This Dasein gets a sense of satisfaction from the fact that nothing is constant because, this means that he can influence a cause in a positive or constructive way. For him, imagination gives vitality to form.

   “Courage is not the absence of despair; it is, rather, the capacity to move ahead in spite of despair (Rollo May, 12) . Michael is one of those exceptional cases that was/is able to creatively transform his traumatic experiences. For him, writing is a natural extension of his intense capacity for feeling. Through his work, Michael finds a positive outlet for his morbidity, anguish, and calamitous past. Writing voluminously, this Dasein contemplates the deep ravine of his depressions and his periodic sense of entrapment as well. Michael’s dark moods are exemplified in his creative works. It is evident that he uses his art as a cathartic release. I do believe that, in addition to the latter, Michael also uses his vivid imagination and sensitivity to conjure up a state of heightened consciousness (or peek/ optimal experience). Dare to create… there is so much truth/ meaning in this statement as it pertains to my Uncle, the soul-searcher and fisher of men. “But if you do not express your own original ideas, if you do not listen to your own being, you will have betrayed yourself”(May, 12). In my opinion, Michael is more honest and open with himself then most people will ever be, and he naturally admits that he still has a lot of room for growth.



   “Perhaps it is human nature to spare no torment when the victim accepts any suffering out of genuine humility, weakness or indifference. Do not we all like proving our strength at the expense of someone or something?”(Balzac, 15) Michael entertains a pensive world and is more apt to adhere to a consilo non impetu way of living. He places a high value on harmony and has an extreme dislike for conflict (he avoids conflict unless confrontation becomes necessary). On average, Michael strives to achieve a win-win situation. My uncle values and almost insists on others living in harmony, has difficulty scolding or punishing people, and tries to please others (sic ad nauseum!). That having been said, I’ll reiterate that Michael does not like any attempts to impose “shoulds” and “have-tos”. He finds absolute systems of rules arbitrary and simply unfair. He has a tendency to rail against words that imply that a value system can be imposed from the outside (typical non-conformist). The second instance when Michael will become angry or willing to confront another is when either one of his “projects” or his moral beliefs (he has a strong sense of values) are violated or threatened. “Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo”(Claudio Aquaviva). For the most part, Michael has a textbook type B personality.

   “Our own peculiar condition is that we are as fit to be laughed at as able to laugh”(Montaigne). Michael has a unique ability to see the good in almost anyone or anything. Aware of his own inner feelings and impulses, Michael is sensitive to the needs of others, compassionate, gentle, tactful. Self-revealing (at appropriate times, although he could use some work in this area), emotionally honest and humane. A source of sustenance for Michael, are those small, genuine gestures from the heart (be they from loved ones or strangers). He is empathetic and sympathetic to others needs, and admires what is noble, truthful and beautiful in life. Michael understands that: “It is not our purpose to become each other; it is to recognize each other, to learn to see the other and honor hum for who he is”(Herman Hesse). Softhearted and trusting, he sees people as each being perfect in their own ways. Michael is helpful (feels guilty when he disappoints people- so back to the hard on himself deal) and tends to tolerate others special dependencies and harmless idiosyncrasies. “Dum spiro spero.” Michael is usually agreeable and when you’re around him, you get the feeling that his love does not judge.

   “Non qui parum habet, sed qui plus cupit, pauper est”(Seneca,II,6). “Ne quid mimis”(Delphic oracle). Michael is self-disciplined and strong willed. He radiates a sense of control (over himself). Legere et non intelligeren eglegere est. Michael makes a conscious effort to be careful and dependable (unless he’s forced to do repetitive mundane tasks). For this Dasein, things are never quite finished and, his perfectionist tendencies may be one of the causes for him to not giving himself enough credit. Michael is well organized and genuinely conscientious in his endeavors.

                             
  Since childhood I have had a love of building bridges. I am naturally interested in bridging gaps. In particular, I feel drawn to examining ways in which chasms disparate findings and theoretical constructs may parallel, complement and ultimately fertilize one another. For me, this assignment was particularly fascinating. The opportunity to “quiet” myself and leave myself open to the inside world of another; and, to compare how his life was similar to my own, was incredible. My initial enthusiasm was met with some hesitation due to my predisposed tendency to bristle at the idea of placing a unique human being into a “box”. This trepidation, however, was lifted when I finally realized that I could tell about Michael’s personality and still preserve the Gestalt (the whole is equal to more than the mechanical sum of the parts) of my authentic, evermore forming Uncle.

   In addition to my being thoroughly entertained (by my interview with this Dasein), I believe that he also benefited from our encounter. Michael seemed amazed when I casually mentioned something “personal” about “him” that he had never told a soul. It wasn’t a little into our conversation that I finally confessed that I knew so much about “him” mainly because his life (to quite an extent) mirrored my own. I seemed to understand him from the inside-- how he struggled and why he felt the way that he did. From my own personal experiences, I know how hard it is to try to learn to accept and value myself. In addition, I am most indubitably aware of how deep the desire is to find an understanding and completeness in life (then again, who isn’t?). Michael and I share a common battle; we each strive for peace (both internal and external). “Datta. Dayadhvam. Damata. Shantih Shantih Shantih.” “The peace which passes understanding.”

   The Dasein walks out of the restaurant and onto the street. The sun has long since set, this doesn’t worry him though; because after all, night is the mother of council. He moves “en lacrimarum valle” slowly approaching his destination. Just as the mighty Aeneas, the Dasein too is a being that knows defeat and disposition, love and love lost. He knows about war and hatred, the ugliness and waste of it, but still he fights when he has to, with hatred and passion. He is dutiful-- oh, what a hard and weary duty he must endure-- he bears his fate with courage.

   He glances at a small chestnut tree and briefly reflects. The flora reminds him of the impasse he had recently crawled through in the hour prior. He grins and continues on his way.

   The Dasein notices the bus parked at the stop ahead of him. With his eyes fixated on the vehicle, he quickens his pace. He endeavors to catch that bus; his stride widens until his last few steps (onto the intended transportation) are nothing less than a full bound. He smiles, a sense of accomplishment fills him as he pays his dues. He floats to the back of the bus joyously and takes a seat.

   To his right are two gentlemen who are engaged in a heated conversation. Upon further investigation, the Dasein finds that they are bickering about politics. One man calls himself a Democrat, the other a Republican. Although the two views seem to originate from the same stem, the men still argue over their perceived differences. To his left sit’s a couple. The woman starts to cry and the man snaps yet another bitter comment her way. The Dasein empathizes with her pain, but still he remains silent. “How can anyone be so cruel?”, he asks himself. He listens to the tumult and shakes his head in dismay at what he’s hearing. “Slaves struggling in their prisons of stone; misplaced concreteness destroys indefinitely.” he sees through their guises and questions whether or not he was ever so shallow as they? He senses the in authenticity of his fellow riders. He is overwhelmed by an intense desire to scowl.

   Suddenly his train of thought shifts. He giggles and reveals to himself that he has become a prime example of maze way re-synthesis. Who is he to judge their genuineness or lack thereof? He ponders whether they recognize as much of him, as he does of them. “Probably not”, the intuitive feeler says to himself. Although he hides little to nothing, he realizes that he has depth, and depth can never be fully transparent. He finally resolves that he has few things in common with these people around him. This idea fills him with a zealous enjoyment as he hops off the bus and heads home to his understanding wife and beautiful kids. His enigmatic eyes sparkle as he revels at the opacity of the here and now. Just as Atlas, he too is burdened by the weight of the world, and similar to Sisyphus he must also endure the absurd. Contrary (perhaps even in spite) to these setbacks the Dasein smiles. “For he who has a why to live, can endure almost any how” (Nietzsche).

Transpersonal Psych: Jung

Transpersonal Psychology: Carl Jung Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious

    “Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas” (Virgil). Nature, with her intricate and shadowy Existence, has always left man with an indefinite sense of awe. From the beginning of mans evolution (into the reflective thinker) he has been faced with bewildering questions which compel him to delve into the mysterious reasons why. From the depths of reality, or nay, perhaps I should say the deepest reaches of the contemplators being, there appears to arise a mysterious fusion of the stuff of life. This ubiquitous interconnectedness always remains as something: “distant”, “receding”, and only manifests itself “indirectly”. Mankind as a whole, seems to harbor the need for this “genuine truth” in temporal existence (“unearthing” a buoying cause if you will), which will posit meaning to all that he sees and is. Summoning the faculties of language/ thought (which in and of themselves can be seen as in dire need of explication) man seeks a vehicle (steadfast and strong) which can transport him to “his” overarching framework. The interest here lies in the seeker himself. With the way paved by the minds of the past, Carl Jung re-iterated the “novel”, multi-faceted postulate of the Collective Unconscious. Within this paper I endeavor to: briefly summarize Jung’s The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, explain how this book is pertinent to Transpersonal Psychology and, quickly examine the strengths and weaknesses of this (Jung’s) work as well.

    “Spiritus intus alit, opaque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscete” (Virgil). According to Jung, man has an ego consciousness, which includes all of the information which he willfully and actively utilizes on a day to day basis. This consciousness is much like a seed that is still surrounded by the “older/ larger” unconscious. The unconscious is split into two parts: the individual unconscious and the collective unconscious. The individual unconscious contains all of those components which the individual person has acquired and repressed or forgotten in the course of their lifetime. The collective unconscious includes all of those images-- or more accurately labeled “Forms” -- which are omnipresent throughout all time. To say that man has a collective unconscious is no more daring than to say perhaps, that man has instincts. The premise of Jung’s work seems to lie in that man doesn’t inherit ideas in and of themselves but, rather, genetically receives the potential to acquire/ experience Universal thoughts. The Universal thoughts can be seen as “motifs” in mythology (and many other writings), meaning that there are common “themes” present. These “motifs” or “themes” can be referred to as Primordial images, Forms, or as Jung chose to call them: Archetypes.

   Archetypes are”…basic psychic elements [which] are infinitely varied and ever changing”(70); the latter are most indubitably not concrete conceptions. Archetypes seem to be present as a basic psychological need. This means that even when one hears men like Henrich Heine exclaim: “Hort ihr das Glockchen klingeln? Kniet nieder- Man bringt die Sakramente einem sterbenden Gotte.” (“Do you hear the little bell tinkle? Kneel down. They are bringing the sacraments to a dying god.”). Or, Friedrich Nietzsche state: “Gotte ist tot” (“God is dead”), one must realize that they are expressing that only the immediate Rosetta Stone has outworn its usefulness (rather than the archetypal image itself0 and hence is in need of replacement. As Euhemeros maintained, the gods are nothing but reflections of human character (60), therefore they are so immersed within us that they can never be dispensed. Ultimately, what is taken in general parlance as “God”, will eternally be resurrected (even if it resurfaces hiding under a mask of “rationality”, “Humanism” or “Science”).

   Jung named several Archetypes in his book, which I feel are important to mention here. The persona consists of the psychic facts which one considers to be personal. It is the image of “I” that one chooses to allow the majority of the world to see. Things/ characteristics which contradict this persona (or actor-like “I”) are said to belong to the shadow. The shadow consists of everything that one living in their little “bubble” of restricted reality would consider “mot-me” (or “not-I”). this is of course an illusion because, the shadow is as much of what a person is as what the person wants to be (persona). Jung considered the shadow (much like the Trickster Figure) an entrance or a doorway (into higher thinking). He rationalized it as such because confrontation with the shadow forces a persons “bubble” (of primarily subjective reality?) to “pop”, leaving the person subjected to the absurd or undiluted objective reality (which is thought to be simply too large/ complex for the human mind to fully process). “Facilis descensus Averno: Noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis: Sed revocare grandum superasque evadere ad auras, Hoc opus, hic labour est” (Virgil).

    More of Jung’s archetypes include the Anima: the feminine (natural/ nurturing) part of a male; and, the Animus: the masculine (competitive/ rational) part of a female. Since all humans are born ab ovo, there is “obviously” a Maternal/ Mother Archetype that is necessary. Two other archetypes that Jung included are the Child: the “pre- and post- conscious essence of man”(178) being an “all-embracing nature of psychic wholeness”(ibid); and the Spirit (or wise old man); which helps guide a person on their journey (of life and realization). “Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem cogitat” (Horace). Rebirth is also an Archetype present in the Collective Unconscious. As a final word on Archetypes, I would like to mention that they manifest themselves differently in individuals and in some cases can be seen as outward projections L .

    Goethe once said: “Zwei seelen Wohnen, ach! In meiner Brust” (Two souls dwell, alas! In my breast). This seems to be one of the primary basis of Jung’s work. Jung strives to achieve a reconciliation of opposites or at least a healthy balance of such. He called the latter the process of Individuation. “Du musst Herschel und gewinnen. Oder dienen und verlieren, Leider oder triumphieren. Amboss oder Hammer sein” (You must be master and win or serve and lose, arrive and triumph, be the anvil or the hammer) (Goethe). The purpose of Individuation seems to be to confront oneself and create the synthesis of the self. “La plus grande chose du monde, c’est de savoir etre a soi” (Montaigne); which according to Jung would be attaining a personality which is midpoint between ego consciousness and the unconscious; and, simultaneously recognizing that one has both an individual and a collective psyche. Jung also spoke of the Mandala symbol, which I wont get into here, but I will say that it represents psychic unity.

   How does Carl Jung’s The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious relate to our class material? Transpersonal Psychology is the study of higher states of awareness which, I believe correlates beautifully with Jung’s drive for man to transcend to something more elevated or greater. I also feel al most as though Transpersonal and Collective Unconsciousness’ could be used synonymously. The class presentation of Mythology/ Religion (which you provided) also had a distinctly Jungian taste. Myth was defined as: something which is supposed to assert a higher or greater reality and to tell us how to achieve it; which in no way disagrees with what Jung expressed in his book. Jung mentions strongly that dreams are an excellent entryway into the unconscious (collective) and that they assist us to come in contact with archetypal images. In class we learned that meditation is an: attempt to tune the physical body and the mental plane to the spiritual. This idea could have been simply taken from Jung’s The Archetypes… where he mentions meditation-- including mantras-- in the section where he speaks of Mandala’s. the most explicit example of how the two (our class and this book) relate to one another lies in that we covered Jung himself in addition to “his” Archetypes and Collective Unconscious. (Although you excused the work as too dense and complex for the scope of a undergraduate student.)

…This is thought of as illusion, as being and not-being. It is and yet remains dissolved in Shiva, Creation therefore begins with an act of division of the opposites that are united in the deity. From their splitting arises, in a gigantic explosion of energy, the multiplicity of the world. The goal of contemplating the process depicted in the Mandala is that the yogi shall become inwardly aware of the deity. Through contemplation, he recognizes himself as god again, and thus returns from the illusion of individual existence into universal totality of the divine state (357).

   Recognizing the e pluribus Unum and the many in the one seems to be a critical point in both Jung’s book and Transpersonal Psychology. The ideal (higher state) of man, for both, is the synthesis of his many parts (or, with my limited knowledge in this field, I believe it to be… regardless).

   Auf gut deutsch the strengths of Jung’s The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious are numerous. Mit leib und seele Jung attacked the Herculian effort of “understanding life”. He comprehended that: “Medio tutissimus ibis” (Ovid); and sought a moderation of the various aspects of Being. Jung also emphasized that, as Martial said: “Non est vivere, sed valere vita est”. Philosophically speaking Jung had a well understanding of the world. He provided numerous pieces of “evidence” to support his hypothesis/ case, which I believe is always a positive strong point in any writer’s work. Jung was extremely well read (a fact that at times I found painfully apparent), which allowed him to demonstrate: where his patterns of thought came from (indicating that he’s not an isolated individual with thoughts which are/ were alien to mankind); and Universal/ quasi-empirical examples in which his Archetypes could be found/ applied. Jung was a scientist (psychologist) first and foremost, which makes his primary strength in the eyes of his co-workers, of course, his ability to provide readers with examples taken from real life.

   My favorite aspect of this book is neither the former or the latter. I feel that the metaphor of a fisherman is Jung’s most powerful tool. It allows one to see Jung’s basic ideas in action. Following the metaphor, the ego consciousness is firmly planted on the ground, casts its line into the sea of the unconscious and passively awaits what can be reeled in or caught. It’s an instance of cooperation where neither the fisherman nor the sea attempt to dominate the other. When dominance is no longer the objective, what is left is like a pure action or a harmonious achievement. Jung promoted creativity and courage in addition to his “primary” act of “inventing” a theory, which cut beneath the cleavage of dichotomy.

    Nemo sine viteo est (Daliegt der Hund begraben). “Difficile est propie communia dicere” (Horace). I believe that one of the most obvious weaknesses of The Archetypes… is that it’s overly complex. Jung uses unnecessary nominalizations (partially due to the translation from Suisse-Deutsch into English?), and he neglects to maintain stable language throughout the piece (constant interjections of “foreign” tongues are present J ). Jung requires his reader to have a large degree of background information and, to be blunt (in agree-ance with you) he’s not the best writer. I believe that Jung’s ideas appeal (or at least would seem to) primarily to introverted people. People who base their lives on “objective” data which “arrives” to them “externally” are somewhat projecting their unconscious, which seems to carry a negative connotation in Jung’s work. An absolutist (“monstrum horrendum. Informe, ingens, cuilumen ademptum” Virgil)… comes off as something “bad” whereas, an introverted attitude-- which would naturally be drawn to accepting Free Will (because of the internal orientation)-- is celebrated and almost glorified. (Mais…Que sais-je?).

   As a Humanist I believe that man has an innate core Self, that in the process of awareness and realization, comes to see the coherence of its multiple, often contradictory pulls. In this, I believe that Jung and I have little disagreement. However, I also believe that this Self is a Responsible Self and I think that Jung doesn’t put anywhere near the emphasis on this that I think that he “should”. Man is to take responsibility of his own life (w/o neglecting his responsibility to other lives). He is to relish in the adventure of being a part of new discoveries, seek out new knowledge, and explore new options. Being human provides mankind with a noble birth. Man is not to succumb to pre-fabricated answers to the great questions in life, but rather, should enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that it entails. Jung considered man the sum total of his parts, and I almost see this as a fault, in that it seems to downplay man’s freedom. I view man as more of a Gestalt in that (so long as he is living) he possess an endless possibility to change. (I should clarify here that I do understand that volition consciousness is bound by obvious physical constrains, so’s not to cause any misunderstanding). Man is not a stagnant Being. His potential for Free Will allows him the ultimate power to reflect and often control how he chooses to perceive/ register his outer environment and what impact he will allow it to have on his innermost life. This means that the value of life is not to be found in its inherent meaning but in one’s attitude towards it. For man, every action carries with it innumerable consequences that has the self as the ultimate author. All in all, I will have to admit that I feel like Jung’s strengths outweigh his weaknesses.

    An inextinguishable impulse burns within humankind. The desire to conjure up a plausible and credible answer, to the irreconcilable questions of life, does not seem to be something which man can pose to parry. Man seeks a contingent solution to the “problems” that his reflective thinking births. Jung, in The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious , did not surpass the great seeking-s of humans; but, rather demonstrated an understanding of the motifs (of man’s thinking) and of the questions which are asked (of course knowing what questions to ask is a good deal of the battle). Jung’s writing contained a je ne sais quois quality. In this paper I have summarized Jung’s book; explored its Transpersonal significance; and, compared the strengths and weaknesses. In addition, I have also unclouded (more so than before) the point where I succumb to the corporal limitations of my essential humanity and define those bedrock assumptions which I am/ must be willing to take on faith. It’s been an interesting adventure to say the very least. If you’ll excuse me of this sheer fatuousness, I suppose that for me, the best place to end is in a similar placs as the beginning. “There are many wonderful things and nothing is more wonderful than man”(Sophocles)

　

　



TRANSLATIONS:

VIRGIL:

“Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.” “Lucky is he who has been able to learn the causes of things.”

“Spiritus intus alit, opaque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscet.” “The spirit within nourishes, and the mind instilled throughout the living parts activates the whole mass mingles within the vast frame.”

“Facilis descensus Averno: Noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis: Sed revocare grandum superasque evadere ad auras, Hoc opus, hic labour est.” “Easy is the way down into the Underworld: by night and by day dark Ditis door stands open; but to w/draw ones own steps and to make a way out to the upper air, that’s the task, that’s the labour.”

“Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cuilumen ademptum.” “A monster horrendous, hideous and vast, deprived of sight.”

Horace:

“Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem Cogitat.” “His thinking does not result in smoke after the flashing fire, but in light emerging from the smoke.”

“Difficile est proprie communia dicere.” “It is hard to utter common notions in an individual way.”

Montaigne:

“La plus grande chose du monde, c’est de savoir etre a soi.” “The greatest thing in the world is to know how to be one’s own.”

Ovid:

“Medio tutissimus ibis.” “A middle course is safest to take.”

Martial:

“Non est vivere; sed valere vita est.” “Life’s not just about being alive, but being well.”

Other:

Ob ovo….. from the egg/begining

E pluribus Unum……… one out of many

Auf gut deutsch…….. in plain language

Mit leib und seele……. with heart and soul

Nemo sine viteo est……. no one is w/o fault

Da liegt der Hund begraben….. that’s the crux of the matter

Je ne sais quios ……. I don’t know what/ hard to say

old papers: culture

                            
  “…Life is a grotesque practical joke constantly pulling away chairs from under [human] dignity. Nothing is sane, reality is a hall of distorting mirrors reflecting the grimness of our own pretensions.”--Milton Shulman

    From a somber décor of gray monochrome, an intransigent stranger emerges almost inaudible. Without false modesty, she attempts to escape the game of the rules. Stipulating absolute conditions doesn’t interest her, she simply wants to be; she wishes to know herself, her limits, and what similarities the world around her shares. She pitilessly expels air in a vulgar attempt to communicate, to understand, but her words seem to fall into veritable voids (deaf ears). She integrates and disintegrates concepts, she both sees likenesses and differences; she does not fear “chaos” nor “order”, she more so is afraid of peoples tendency to: “have the word goodness in their mouths, and a bloody knife between their teeth”(Ionesco).

    The alienists and their alienated… In this essay, I will question where we draw the line between the two; and, more importantly I will explore whether or not monkey and apes have culture. The definition of culture that I’ll be using comes from Webster’s Dictionary and states: “[Culture is]… Social and intellectual formation.” by placing this meaning on the word, I begin with the pre-notion that all living things in one way or another possess culture.

    To facilitate my work let us merely suppose that there are three simultaneous modes of world which characterize the existence of each of our being in the world. (This concept is from Biswanger.) the first aspect of the world in this hypothetical situation will be Umwelt (“world around“), the next will be Mitwelt (“with world”), and the third final world will be Eigenwelt (“own world”). The Umwelt is what is taken in general parlance as world; it is the world of objects, the natural environment that includes biological needs, drives, and instincts. This world has natural laws (hierarchies, imposing wills) and cycles (desire/ relief, sleep/ wake, life/ death), which each of us is thrust into and must adjust to. Because this objective world is too large for any being to fully know, we reduce it to a smaller, more subjective reality, of things which impact us directly or things which we lend meaning to (the world can not be purely objective, but it is also not limited to our imaginative participation-- strange concept, a bit confusing!). Regardless, as living beings we are tied to an immediate concrete reality.

    The significance of Umwelt in showing culture in primates is overwhelming. Primates are extremely efficient at maintaining life (because they are communal animals). They use tools (I.e. termite fishing and nut cracking) to help them easily meet (and perhaps even surpass) their basic biological needs. This demonstrates an elevated mental capacity implying better thinking and learning patterns among their species.

    Although moral intransigence and dogmatic application of law and order tends to defy change, gliding like a ghost, I shall move on with my attempt to explain the mysterious fusion of world and life and culture. As this procession of thought continues, I begin to think of the importance of commitment. Most human seem to be caught up in this encompassing notion that the evils which befoul human relationships and, even the freedom to interact openly for more than tangible reasons, is limited solely to Homo Sapiens. Men have carried this point (to what seems to be) savage caricature. The lame idea that the chatter of animals (primates) is composed of purely irrational assemblages of sounds, denuded of all sense, has sufficed as an explanation as the result of infinitesimal sluggishness. Primates not only bond together to learn basic survival skills, and ensure protective measures for long term species survival from predators and the elements, monkeys not only have a hierarchy to ensure survival of the group from individuals within their own group (aka law/ order)… but primates also speak a complex language of sounds, postures and facial alterations… they also have managed to evolve and learn human sign language. And language is core to human evolution and our sense of culture. Without reservation, I find the egocentrism of humans denying monkey linguistics as viable evidence of their community and intelligence, dubious at best. This highbrow, forbidding thinking is superfluous and most likely the product of insecurity in the minds of its creators/ believers. This type of belief has a deep desire to conquer and gain power over nature, and results in the estrangement of mankind from our world (something that I don’t believe our primate counter-parts are tormented by, to such an extreme degree). As someone who is opposed to conformism and accepted mores which conflict with my sense of self, I tend to lean towards an ontological approach of seeking a relation to reality which cuts between the subject/ object dichotomy (not complete idealism, not complete materialism).

    Mitwelt is the world of interrelationships. Its not the “group on the individual” or the “collective mind” nor even the herd instinct (which seeks an environmental constant). It is, however, a complex interaction where the meaning of the others in a group, are partially determined by ones own relationship to them (the meaning of the group for me depends on how I place myself into it-- personal decision and commitment are key). Mitwelt is a “true” relationship (versus the Umwelt adaptation/ herd deal) which involves give/ take (compromise) and mutual awareness. This is seen in primates to an almost profound level. Chimpanzees and other primates, create bonds/ friendships which surpass the necessary survival pairing. When engaging in play, primates demonstrate signs of happiness; and, when someone dies or is absent from their immediate presence, they appear to be sad. Their culture can be noticed by observing the physical and verbal expressions they use to interact with each other by various levels of intimacy.

    At this point I’ve approached the physical world, and the world of interpersonal relationships. Nowhere is the profound realization of the contingency of life (the “thrownness” as the Existentialists use to say) more evident than in the solitary world of primates. In the beginning of this essay, I mentioned that man alienates, but now the question arises, who is the alienated? Man suffers an inner, harrowing conviction of being estranges. It is this awesome presence of “alone-ness” which palpably pervades mans being. I do not intend to be deluded by hope or dragged down by hopelessness through this, my inquiry of man and monkey’s condition, my endeavor is rather to show how Eigenwelt lends depth and verve to despair (and perhaps cyclically gives rebirth to despair itself).

    Eigenwelt is the world of self-awareness, self-relatedness, and self-knowledge; it gives insight into the meaning of an event for oneself. It is not merely the inner experience, but rather the basis on which we see the “real” world in her “true” light (the basis of our relation to the world, our perspective). The vast array of deterministic influences which operate on me (from the outside world) are only significant in how I relate to them, how I carry them with me, and how I allow myself to be molded (or built) by them; and, this is the job of my Eigenwelt.

  Eigenwelt is the home of insight, of my inner Gestalt and reform in general. The presence of this third world implies higher thinking and higher being. To recognize oneself as an individual is a trait that primates and humans alone seem to share. Primates show the presence of this through mirror-recognition, speech involving words like “I want” or “I feel” (when they are taught human sign language), and even through their interpersonal relationships of the Mitwelt. I believe that it is only a matter of the extent to which mankind feels his sense of self that truly separates us from the monkeys.

    When a monkey is wronged, it can express righteous indignation, a trait usually considered reserved for a complex culturally advanced species. Monkeys have also been caught doing extreme acts of altruism and self sacrifice. These complex features of Self in relationship to other, lead me to believe monkeys are not only highly intelligent but also have culture.

    Mans struggle for self-assertion in all sectors of life has made him more aware that reality constitutes more than a mechanical sum of its parts. Man is the Idealist; the sole being to have the capability to project wants and hopes into a distant future. From animalistic vigor, or perhaps even sheer necessity, amn lends meaning and purpose to his own life and all that he encounters (somewhat cathartic talent, isn’t it?). It is the distinctive capacity of humans to abstract, to use symbols and to go beyond immediate limits and think in terms of the possible. The German word Augenblick (blinking of an eye, pregnant moment, or epiphany) indicates something which I believe is beyond primates (or machines for that matter). Man can make commitments and understand that the self has made a promise, which must be fulfilled, in order to maintain “values”. Man also has the unusual capacity to cast bridges across time and know/ understand things that a personal individual has never experienced (or bared witness to, but the person can identify, such as a threat). The final trait that I’ll mention that separates man from other primate relatives is mans ability to jeopardize the self by questioning the self (introspection or skepticism can prompt man to alienate himself from his worlds), which can in turn lead to suicide.

    The world of biological drives/ cycles and determinism (Umwelt), the world of responsibility to fellow beings (Mitwelt), and the world in which the individual can be aware of the fate he alone entertains at that moment (Eigenwelt)… all of these worlds theoretically are running parallel and simultaneously. As conscious beings, humans and primates alike are engaged in the process of forming and designing our reality. Because we (mankind and monkeys) are both constantly growing/ changing, then I believe that this fact alone constitutes a: “Social and intellectual formation”. In this essay I have attempted to avoid the arid intellectualism or cold loss of self that is prevalent in our current academic environment. I attempted to show that all primates have culture.

   To conclude, I would like to say that though each of us is ultimately alone, each of us is ultimately also in relationship to other. This paradox describes the situation of both man and monkey.

   And the lewd gleams in her eyes will become a devouring flame in the end, her voice has transformed from a whisper to a scream, but will it be enough?-- Will anyone notice? Will anyone see or hear her pleas from the deepest reaches of her being? She presents an unsparing indictment of barbaric thought, which is immediately countered by her idealistic assessment of what things should be; does her cry die unheard? Is she right or is she wrong, and does either exist anywhere outside of the individuals mind? Confusion. She once again fades into the gray monochrome, blending with her surroundings… immobile and inaudible. The acceptance is her light the rest the obscurity of art…the lost.

Friends letters 4

Friend,

Never be afraid, when you have friends like me. I am here for you, and will be available untill my dying breath. I am loyal to a fault. You are always welcome to reach out when you have time.

As for running out of things to say, my young friend, you still have a lot to learn. Worry not. Perhaps someday you will learn to wonder at the mundane. I once subjected a professor of mine, in a graduate class at UB, to a 25 page dissertation on a blade of grass.

I wish I was kidding. I used the microcosm to prove a macrocosmic point. I demonstrated that we live in specifics but speak in generalities.

My entire foundation was that we ignore the minutae of life and therefore are condemned to be imprisoned within ourselves. When man becomes unable to see the beauty and wonder of other living beings on earth, he was ultimately lost his humanity.

When a man's hubris leads him to lose the capacity of empathising with the struggles of other, thus ultimately denying himself the sheer joy and comfort of escaping the loneliness and thrownness of volition consciousness; then this man has unwittingly killed himself.

Identity and our sense of self is created from Other and our relationship to other.

I argued that there is a very real and concrete reality (umwelt) that is far too often cast out for superficial acceptance. That man sacrifices his identity and freedom, for hollow pursuits of fleeting objects and short lived relationships.

 I projected my own self onto the blade of grass, demonstrating how a single blade of grass both existed on its own, and in relationship to all of the other blades of grass. Adding to the field, never taking more than it needed to survive. I showed that it's very nature made it complete and whole, never lacking.

My final conclusion was, as you may guess, that narcissistic tendencies propel otherwise sentient beings to become more like barren deserts where nothing fertile can grow.

No amount of food could fill the hollow man's hunger. No amount of drink could quench his thirst. Nothing could survive a man hell-bent on destruction. When a man loses himself, what hope can be left?

My argument went full circle to man returning to his roots, finding when he first was lost, leaving complacency and hollow pursuits, and restoring his true place amongst nature.

I encouraged a return to being a blade of grass, simple and pure. And if one could not be a blade of grass, perhaps we mere mortals should at least wonder at the miracle of life and the blessings of our freedom of awareness and choice.

I was much more graceful in my writing back then, and more focused on my passions. Sadly the professor had no sense of humour and called me an asshole and failed me. The paper was later published by a philosophy professor at the school. I guess there are silver linings to some clouds?

Long story long, you can speak about anything with me. I am here for you. Even if you just want to share a pic of yourself post a long day; or chat about a great lunch... I am here for you. Except when I'm at Renaissance festival. Because this is my sacred silly time on weekends until the end of October. But I'm really still here, just in a delayed untill Monday sort of way (sherry smiles... I attached some pics of my last 2 weekend games).

As for what I've been doing... I had another ugly legal battle with the state of Ohio. Lawyers representing my insurance company and job and family services squared off with me in court. I now have won 11 straight civil rights cases against the state of Ohio. Sad.

The constant fighting for basic human rights and simple medical care takes a toll on my physical body.

Im exhausted from fighting for my life. I can't imagine how other autistics and less fortunate individuals survive these horrendous battles. I had to call in a favour from the Ohio governor's office and resort to some pretty nasty new York tactics to win, this time.

I'm not sure how many more battles this old fighter has left in her. I guess that is my purpose in life... To fight. A warrior's heart to the bitter end...

Tell me how things are going with you? Are you still in school?

It's been so long, I can't imagine how many adventures you must have had. I miss your openness and capacity for thought. I hope to hear back from you...



Friend,

 I'm kind of in a weird situation... OSU ran a bunch of tests Tuesday night and contacted me at midnight (24 hours ago) telling me to go to the ER immediately. Apparently my potassium levels dropped to critical levels as did my sodium levels. I refused to go, and have spent the day discussing what other course of action can be taken to avoid all out hospitalisation.

Regarding the blade of grass... I should probably give you some background information.

The class was social psychology for professionals. It was unfortunately taught by a highly narcissistic professor who suffered from an extreme case of affluenza. His entitlement issues were astronomical and disturbing to say the least.

The professor used the class to promote himself and his books that he had written. He believed that money begot money because it was the natural order of the world. He was highly masoginistic and staunchly promoted democracy. Unfortunately every time he said democracy, I heard aristocracy. The man actually appeared to believe that 1%' ers like his family, were born better and deserved wealth and power, whilst others struggled because they were some how inferior. (Of course this is the antithesis of our nations forefathers intent when they created a democracy. The experiment of democracy was supposed to entail a balance of power, include the voices of the people and embrace differences. Originally our nations creators imagined a country where merit/effort was required to earn wealth, and man was supposedly going to be judged on his choices, not on some inherent goodness that didn't correspond with his real world behaviour).

Although my former professor used words like transparency, I repeatedly recognized that he was obscuring the truth as often as possible and continuously promoting dangerous propaganda. He spoke of openness and tolerance when he was intolerant of any beliefs not in alliance with his own. The psychology professor was quick to label "haters", while he perpetuated violence against any that did not share his opinions.

The professor frequently singled me out in classes and targeted me because I was different. He attacked me for the majority of the semester.

The paper about a blade of grass was my vehement rejection of the professor and his primitive and archaic system of beliefs. I took the approach of humanistic and existential psychologists as my base and factored in annoying tidbits of Marxist theories. I think the paper even included a few Trotsky and Beauvoir reference digs.

I totally knew that the professor was going to fail me. That's why the paper was placed with his snide remarks, in the hands of senior professors at the university capable of waging war on him. I wasn't fond of the professor and I really disliked his behaviour.

I suppose w/o dredging up the original, there's no way that you could embrace the full level of ass-hole-ness that I used to stoop to. I only referenced this old silly embarkment of mine, to help show you that even the simplest of things can be interesting.

I suppose in hindsight it was a poor choice to refer to this. Perhaps we could embark on deeper discussions once I have recovered a touch?

I love our differences in beliefs. You truly are an amazing email pal for me, because you remind me to embrace differences and appreciate the multifaceted views and experiences that each individual brings to a discussion.

Sometimes I get frustrated and retreat into my own world. I forget to look around me and remember how awesome people like you are.

I hope we can be more diligent and have friendly conversations at least a few times a month? I truly appreciate you.

　

　

　
Friend,

Actually the professor was "The Liberal", and I, "The Conservative".

His particular brand of extreme liberalism brings him full circle back around to the oppression of the masses. I was repeatedly reminded of the old Martin Shulman quote: "...[H]ad the word goodness in his mouth, and a bloody knife between his teeth".

I was the representative of a very conservative "old" way of thinking. I believe that we should be held accountable for our actions. That government should step back. And that federal government is not a parental replacement for adults unwilling to act their age. I believe that government should respect their adult citizens and leave them to live their lives in relative peace.

See, I am the evil of the liberals. I think a wo/man should be defined by her/his choices. I think that we should find solace in our work and be permitted to seek love and happiness. I think that goals should be realistic.

I cringe every time this nation enables illegal immigration, because I remember hearing about the hardships and pride that people had, as they transitioned into becoming American. I thought that this realistic struggle was imperative to understanding that being American isn't all rainbows and butterflies. Quite often being American means standing in endless lines and paying fees that no-one can even figure out what they are, much less why you have to pay them.

I loathe the American education system because it promotes mediocracy. We put down children with gifts in order to rise up disinterested students. I think that teachers in America are generally lazy. A teacher should be able to excite and encourage their students, and help each student learn and grow in her/his own way.

I am for a total revamp of our educational system where children would be tested by the 3rd grade for aptitudes and interests. Then seperated into different schools. I think again in 7th grade or so, there should be further testing for aptitudes and interests to increase the degree of specialization of education.

I believe that far too often this country gives kids unrealistic goals. A child with a 70 IQ shouldn't be told he is going to be a doctor or a lawyer some day. This is cruel and irrational.

I've met many people with amazing abilities that were put down for their gifts and interests.

I recall one young man in high school by the 8th grade could accurately diagnose most car problems simply by hearing the car run, and taking a quick glance under the hood.

Kevin was truly remarkable. His gift was unparalleled, yet the school pushed this mediocre student in reading and science to excel in S.T.E.M. and abandon his passion with cars. The school failed him by refusing to accept his amazing gift and by denying him his passions they failed to advance him further.

I thought that Kevin should have been the best mechanic he could be and that we should be proud to have such an upstanding and gifted citizen in our midst. The school told him to raise his goals and standards. He dropped out of school at 18, still only in the 8th grade, and died of a drug overdose 5 years later.

I think that people set unrealistic goals for kids and ultimately set students up for failure.

My beliefs are odd. I was raised by a very old family. The professor picked up on my being different from the start. I'm guessing the female boxer thing wasn't much to his liking. Then take conservative values, and throw in the aspie girl part.... In hindsight it's no wonder why he hated me.

I am reminded of an extremely traumatizing incident that occurred in class one day. I was having a bad time when the professor started in on me, which led to me exploding on him in class. The professor called me a Nazi, because I could understand German. I was having a particularly bad day and had just attended a funeral of one of my beloved family members. His annoying ignorance pushed me off the deep end. I exploded on him and informed him that although I indeed was part of "the people", I had nothing to do with the old 1900's depression era german "People's Party".

My mom's maiden name was Gross. My great grandparents had barely escaped Germany with their lives. My grandfather was a war hero that returned to Europe with the Americans to see if any of our family had survived. I snarled at the professor in front of roughly 500 other students in class that ignorance was bliss. Some of the Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust were also German, and that the Ashkenazi Jews that escaped did not lose their German ancestry as they entered American soil. My family converted to Christianity, married Americans and integrated. I spoke German because my elders insisted that I learn. My family lived under the adage: "never again".

I then stormed out of the large conference room. The professor followed me and apologized. This incident really didn't improve our relationship. The young professor tended to make judgements w/o facts or evidence. That is why I actually took action against him. I felt that he was dangerous.

I was 13 when I first read Sun Tzu: "The art of war". Sun Tzu taught: Learn thy enemy, as thyself. I spent the entire class learning the professors beliefs, his rationalisations (or lack thereof). I learned his whys and his how's. By the end I probably knew this professor better than he knew himself. I understood his liberalism because I became it, in order to grow to surpass it. I had used this same technique in fighting hand to hand combat millions of times prior.

The senior professors that I screwed him over with, were also liberals. The university was full of liberals. I found people that could appreciate my abilities and my unique capacity for reason. I provided them with a rational case, and with the documentation that they needed to deal with their coworker. I then walked away and allowed the liberal older professors to deal with the extremist themselves. The kid was ignorant and prejudice. He got eaten alive by his own kind. His "people", the liberal professors, stopped him because he was ultimately harming their cause. I didn't destroy him, he ultimately destroyed himself.

Sometimes the right path isn't easy and it isn't always clear.

I frequently walked alone. Standing against true injustice is never easy. And quite frequently it is difficult to decide what really is an injustice vs simply a highly manipulative propaganda that will lead to the destruction of human life.

I will stand to be judged for my choices in my life, as we all will. I am odd. I trained in ghettos and never saw the colour of another's skin, only the quality of the individual before me. I didn't see money and fame as holding any real value. I was comfortable engaging with people from many different walks of life, and loved learning about the amazing ways that some humans have adapted for survival.

I believe in love. And when individuals are lucky enough to find love, I am happy for them. I especially enjoyed being invited to different places of worship, because oddly I feel a deep sense of inspiration in temples, mosques, churches and houses of God. I live in a constant state of wonder.

I enjoy diversity, because what fun would life be if we were all the same (not to mention our species would have gone extinct long ago if we were such a simple set of beings). I suppose in some ways I even enjoy opposition, especially in friendly competition, because I'm a fighter and warrior at heart.

I suppose this probably isn't what you wanted to hear? That I'm extreme because I stand against mainstream? Jeff is actually far more liberal than me, a fact to which is probably quite disappointing to an outstanding young man such as yourself.

I am literal. My mind is hard wired strangely. I need facts and data in order to make decisions. I'm not great with chaos or anarchy. I like structure and moderation. I find comfort in dependable environments and am frustrated when people are dishonest or cruel.

I guess this rant has gone long enough.


Hey friend,

I wanted to thank you for being strong and staying up with me the last few nights (Wednesday and Thursday). You truly got me through a very difficult time. The hospital would not have been bearable had you not been by my side, via phone contact.

You are an awesome trooper. Chatting with me like you did really helped me endure some pretty horrible treatments. Im not sure I would have tolerated the stay as well as I did, had you not been talking to me. I wanted you to know how special you are.

I was in critical condition, and honestly beyond stressed by sensory overload. While we chatted I calmed down and started to relax. You helped me to feel not alone. I am truly blessed to have a friend like you. Your sacrifice was beyond appreciated.

Your physical presence wasn't half as important as the emotional presence you provided me with. My family was forced to leave by midnight, due to my severity. But hospital staff saw how amazing you were for helping me, and encouraged the phone contact. You helped me to stay calm.

Thank you so much. Your nighttime conversations on Wednesday and Thursday helped keep me alive.

My potassium was 2.5 and my sodium levels were barely holding. My blood pressure was 245/180, heart rate almost 200 BPM, and I had abnormal EKG and other tests showed abnormal.

When I communicated with you, nurses observed my blood pressure and heart rate reducing and stabilizing. My blood pressure went down to 185/135 and heart rate dropped below 140 BPM, while I communicated with you. That's a pretty awesome deviation.

Thank you for being there for me. And just speaking with me like I was a human being.

And even moreso... Thank you for caring. You are a blessing for me, young Mr Harry.

I am home and recovering well. I will most likely be my bouncing hyper self by later today. I'm only a little bummed that I can't go to the festivals this weekend (Renaissance or Oktoberfest at fairgrounds in Columbus).

I appreciate you. Forever in my heart,